geological nature of mineral licks and the reasons for geophagy … · region, the western bank of...

Biogeosciences, 14, 2767–2779, 2017https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2767-2017© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Geological nature of mineral licks and the reasons forgeophagy among animalsAlexander M. Panichev1, Vladimir K. Popov2, Igor Yu. Chekryzhov2, Ivan V. Seryodkin1, Alexander A. Sergievich3,and Kirill S. Golokhvast1,3

1Laboratory of animal ecology and protection, Pacific Geographical Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy ofSciences, 690041, 7 Radio street, Vladivostok, Russia2Far Eastern Geological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 690014,159 100-letie Vladivostoku avenue, Vladivostok, Russia3Far Eastern Federal University, 690950, 8 Sukhanova street, Vladivostok, Russia

Correspondence to: Kirill S. Golokhvast ([email protected])

Received: 13 August 2016 – Discussion started: 27 September 2016Revised: 24 March 2017 – Accepted: 5 April 2017 – Published: 7 June 2017

Abstract. In this paper, the reasons for geophagy (the eatingof rocks by wild herbivores) in two regions of the easternSikhote-Alin volcanic belt are considered. The mineralog-ical and chemical features of the consumed rocks, as wellas the geological conditions of their formation, are investi-gated. A comparative analysis of the mineral and chemicalcomposition of the consumed rocks and the excrement ofthe animals, almost completely consisting of mineral sub-stances, is carried out. It is established that the consumedrocks are hydrothermally altered rhyolitic tuffs located in thevolcanic calderas and early Cenozoic volcano-tectonic de-pressions. They consist of 30–65 % from zeolites (mainlyclinoptilolites) and smectites, possessing powerful sorptionproperties. According to the obtained data, the main reasonfor geophagy may be connected with the animals’ urge to dis-card excessive and toxic concentrations of certain elementsthat are widespread in specific habitats and ingested with for-age plants.

1 Introduction

A new term, “kudur”, borrowed from the lexicon of Asiannomad tribes, is analogous to the archaic Russian term “ani-mal salt lick” and defines a natural landscape complex fea-turing the outcrops of mineral soils, which are systemati-cally consumed by animals and, in some cases, by humans(Panichev, 2011; Panichev et al., 2013; Young, 2011). The

term “kudurites” emerged from “kudur”, and it specifies allof the varieties of natural mineral soils consumed by animalsin kudurs.

The majority of kudurs can be divided into two types – hy-dromorphic and lithomorphic (Panichev, 1990). Hydromor-phic kudurs are formed by running mineral water springs;specifically, clay rocks saturated with chemical elementsbecome kudurites in a water discharge area. A lithomor-phic kudur is an exposure of specific rocks that are activelysearched for and consumed by animals. The reason why an-imals eat kudurites is not obvious in the majority of cases:this problem is still challenging and demands a comprehen-sive scientific explanation.

The importance of the study of kudurs and kudurites be-comes obvious if we recall that it is linked to the fundamen-tal problem of the interaction of living systems with min-erals (including minerals’ contribution to the origin of life).This problem can be applied to the contemporary scientificfields of practical medicine, ecology, and animal breedingtechnologies.

The presence of kudurs, from the modern point of view, in-dicates the significance of certain unknown conditions (prob-ably biogeochemical in nature) that are necessary to sustainherbivorous life in specific habitats. Kudurs are a very impor-tant constituent of many reserves, national parks and otherprotected areas. The most notable nature reserves contain-ing kudurs that attract large numbers of hoofed mammals areYellowstone National Park in the USA and the Ngorongoro

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

2768 A. M. Panichev et al.: Geological nature of mineral licks and the reasons for geophagy among animals

Conservation Area in Tanzania (Africa) (Panichev, 2011). Aswe know, both of these parks border giant large calderas oflate Cenozoic volcanoes.

Natural landscapes, including kudurs, are widely dis-tributed within the territory of Eurasia, including Russia. Themajority of such landscapes are located within protected ar-eas. Extensive kudurs are known to be situated within theCaucasian State Biosphere Nature Reserve. There are alsonumerous kudurs in most of the reserves of the Altai-Sayanregion, the western bank of Lake Baikal, and the TaymyrPeninsula, as well as in the Sikhote-Alin mountains.

This paper is written with the goal of introducing special-ists with an interest in kudurs and geophagy to the resultsof the 2005–2008 and 2010–2012 detailed biological and ge-ological research conducted within two areas of the easternSikhote-Alin, Far East, Russia. We chose these two areas be-cause they represent the typical geological-landscape situa-tions associated with the appearance of kudurs in these vol-canic mountains (Elpatievsky and Panichev, 1980).

2 Materials and methods

We were given permission to undertake sampling from themanagement of the Sikhote-Alinsky Biospheric Reserve.Confirmation was signed by the director of the reserve,D. G. Gorshkov.

We chose Vanchinskaya, a rift-related coal-bearing basinnear the intersection of the Milogradovka and Ussuri rivers(the south-eastern part of the Primorsky region; Fig. 1, areano. 1), as well as the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano in theSikhote-Alin biosphere nature reserve (the north-eastern partof the Primorsky region; Fig. 1, area no. 2) as examples oftypical structures for this detailed research.

In studies of kudurs and kudurites, we are dealing withobjects that have both a biological and geological content atthe same time; thus, their effective study is possible only byadopting interdisciplinary approaches that bring together theefforts of biologists and geologists, specifically volcanolo-gists, petrologists and geochemists. This explains the specificcombination of the general biological approaches with thecommon geological methodologies and approaches in thiswork.

During the fieldwork, we studied the landscape peculiari-ties of the kudur complexes and surrounding territories, andcollected kudurites and the parental rocks along which theyform as well as coprolite (lithified animal excrement) sam-ples. The collected rock samples and coprolites were studiedand tested in the laboratory.

Thin sections were cut from the collected rock samplesthat were then studied under a polarised optical microscopein the Geochemical Laboratory of the Far Eastern Geologi-cal Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy ofScience.

Figure 1. Location of sites of detailed geological and biologicalstudies around the Vanchinsky coal-bearing basin (area no. 1) andin the area of the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano (area no. 2).

Fifty samples of rocks and two samples of coprolites (theVanchinsky coal-bearing basin (area no. 1) and in the areaof the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano (area no. 2)) were anal-ysed in the analytical centre of the Far Eastern GeologicalInstitute by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) using an Agilent 7500 instrument and by X-rayphase spectroscopy (principal investigator: N. V. Zarubina).Eight samples from the Solontsovsky area and two from theVanchinsky area were sent to the Mineral Crystal ChemistryLaboratory of the Belov Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits(Russian Academy of Science) to determine their quantita-tive mineral composition. The mineral structure of unknownswas diagnosed by comparing the experimental and referencespectra from the PDF-4 database using the software packageJade-6.5 (MDI Company). The quantitative analysis was car-ried out using the absorption coefficient method describedelsewhere (Pushcharovsky, 2000). A Rigaku D/Max-2200diffractometer was applied (investigator: V. V. Krupskaya).

Finally, 10 kudurite samples and two coprolite sampleswere studied under a Hitachi S-3400N electronic microscopewith a Thermo Scientific energy-dispersive system at the FarEastern Geological Institute (Far Eastern Branch of the Rus-sian Academy of Science).

Biogeosciences, 14, 2767–2779, 2017 www.biogeosciences.net/14/2767/2017/

A. M. Panichev et al.: Geological nature of mineral licks and the reasons for geophagy among animals 2769

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Landscape characteristics of the research areas

The Vanchinskaya coal-bearing basin is situated near the di-vision watershed of the Sikhote-Alin range of mountains.The majority of this area is located in the Vanchin-Ugolnyiriver valley (right tributes of the Milogradovka River). Interms of relief, the Vanchinskaya Basin is a wide and rel-atively flat basin, approximately 15 km long with an aver-age width of 5 km. To the north and north-west, this basin isadjacent to the Berezovskaya coal-bearing basin situated inthe Ussuri river floodplain to the south of Mount Oblach-naya, one of the highest peaks of the Sikhote-Alin range.The basins are divided by a modest watershed area with arelative height of approximately 100 m (the absolute heightof the swell is approximately 600 m). To the south-west,the Vanchinskaya Basin is bound by a tectonic scrap, well-defined in relief, with an average height relative to the bot-tom of the basin of approximately 500 m. The maximum el-evation of the scrap is 1471 m (Mount Gorelaya Sopka).

Remnants of the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano are situatedon the eastern slope of the Sikhote-Alin, within the bor-ders of the Terneisky administrative district in the Primorskyregion. The total area of the lithocomplexes related to theSolontsovsky palaeovolcano is approximately 300 km2, ofwhich two-thirds is situated on the right bank of the Tay-ozhnaya River in the Sikhote-Alin State Biospheric Reserve.

The Solontsovsky palaeovolcano does not stand out muchin relief. It builds up a modest low mountain range on theeastern slopes of the Sikhote-Alin range with elevations from400 to 1100 m. Mount Solontsovaya has the highest elevationof the volcanic remains (1160 m).

More than 90 % of the territories under consideration areoccupied by forest, with significant vertical zoning. Up to600 m in elevation, cedar and broad-leaved forests of Koreanpines (Pinus koraiensis) and Mongolian oaks (Quercus mon-golica) prevail. Fir–spruce forests dominate the mountainslopes in the elevation interval from 600 to 1000 m. At eleva-tions above 1000 m, stone birch forests take over, followed bysub-alpine-type shrubs. Larch and birch–larch forests prevailin the flat watershed areas close to the Vanchinskaya Basin.

Brown mountain-forest soils and brown taiga illuvial–humic strongly skeletal acidic soils are typical for the de-scribed areas. The soil profile is morphologically poorly dif-ferentiated into genetic horizons. Frequently, one can find lo-calities with rock slides or crushed stone soil that are almostdevoid of humus.

The typical species of herbivorous hoofed animals inhabit-ing both study areas are the Far Eastern red deer (Cervus ela-phus) and the musk deer (Moschus moschiferus). Roe deer(Capreolus pygargus) are seasonally present (making sharpseasonal migrations into the territory). Of these, the main vis-itor to the kudurs is the Far Eastern red deer. Roe deer onlyextremely rarely make visits to the kudurs. Musk deer show

Figure 2. Rodent tooth marks on a dense zeolitic rhyolite tuff. Sam-ple from a kudur in the Chetvertyi stream basin (the Solontsovskypalaeovolcano area).

no evidence of visiting the kudurs, which is undoubtedly con-nected to nutritional differences among these herbivorous an-imals. It is known that the musk deer diet is dominated byepiphytes, whereas the Far Eastern red deer prefers herba-ceous plants and shrubs. Thus, it is obvious that the kudursare visited by those animals that have a closer connectionwith bedrocks.

Not long ago, before the 1980s, an additional species ofhoofed animal inhabited the territory of the Solontsovskypalaeovolcano and actively visited kudurs: the moose (Alcesalces). Currently, there are no moose in this area, possiblydue to the shift in the habitat borders of this species to thenorth in response to the general trend of climate warming inthe region.

Apart from hoofed animals, the blue hare (Lepus timidus),squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), northern pika (Ochotonamantchurica) and mouse-like rodents (mice, field voles)also not infrequently visit kudurs, leaving distinctive teethmarks on the stones. Figure 2 shows a distinctive sampleof exposed bedrock with the teeth marks of a mouse-likerodent, gathered from one of the kudurs in the Solontsovskyvolcano area.

Kudurs, because they are gathering sites for hoofed an-imals, often attract large predators. These are most com-monly brown bears (Ursus arctos), sometimes tigers (Pan-thera tigris), and, rarely, wolves (Canis lupus).

As demonstrated by our group’s research (Zaumislova andPanichev, 1990) and the data of Kaplanov (1948), and as re-ported by a number of the reserve employees in the “NatureChronicles”, the season in which animals visit kudurs is theentirely snow-free period of the year. The greatest peaks invisits by hoofed animals occur at the end of spring/beginningof summer and at the end of summer/beginning of autumn.At peak times, the number of kudur visits by animals can bedozens per 24 h. During a visit to a kudur, a medium-sized

www.biogeosciences.net/14/2767/2017/ Biogeosciences, 14, 2767–2779, 2017


Figure 3. Zeolitic rhyolite tuffite exposure with the marks of activeusage of rocks by wild animals (kudur no. 9, the Vanchinskaya coal-bearing basin).

Far Eastern red deer usually consumes between several hun-dred grams to several kilograms of kudurite.

Our field studies as well as the materials of our predeces-sors show that, in both areas under consideration, there arekudurs that are almost entirely of the lithomorphic type. Asa rule, these are relatively dry rock exposures emerging onmountain slopes of various steepness that were created as aresult of natural slope erosion processes and the activity ofhoofed animals. Sometimes these sites are rock slides withsmall areas of exposed stone, showing evidence of consump-tion by animals in the form of recess salt-lick niches in therock and a peculiar network of approach paths maintained bythe animals over an extended period. The typical appearanceof the kudurs occurring in the studied territories is shown inFigs. 3, 4, and 5.

It should be emphasised that the kudurs in both areas underconsideration are known to have existed for a very long time.The largest of them, for example on the southern slope ofMount Solontsovaya (Figs. 4, 5), have existed almost intactfor several hundred years.

An indirect form of evidence that kudurs have existed forcenturies may be the nearby presence of archaeological siteswith peculiar artefacts. Such a site from the Stone Age, con-taining numerous hunting arrows and spear heads, was foundin the wellhead part of the Vanchin-Ugolnyi stream (Fig. 6).Such sites also exist in the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano area(Fig. 7). The majority of the archaeological sites date backto the late Palaeolithic or early Neolithic age (Kononenko,1993).

Archaeologists explain ancient man’s interest in both ter-ritories under consideration as being based on the presenceof strongly silicified volcanic rock that was convenient formanufacturing stone implements. It is logical to suppose thatthese areas also attracted ancient man to go there to hunt thehoofed animals that were visiting the kudurs.

We believe that the lifespan of some kudurs may amountto thousands and even tens of thousands of years; as a matter

Figure 4. The Bolshoi Shanduisky kudur at the base of MountSolontsovaya, at the head of the Malyi Solontsovyi stream on abedrock exposure of the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano caldera sed-iment. Animals actively eat loosened, weathered and partly clayedlandwaste of zeolitic ash tuff and tuffites of rhyolite composition(I. V. Seryodkin in photo).

Figure 5. View of Mount Solontsovaya from the south (source:Google Maps). At the base of the mountain, kudur no. 3 (BolshoiShanduisky) appears as a white spot.

of fact, these can be time periods of geological scale, duringwhich the given territory was inhabited by large hoofed an-imals. The lifespan of small kudurs is less significant. Thelength of their life depends, first, on geological and geomor-phological (bulge forming) factors determining the exposureof zeolite-containing rock and, second, on the conveniencefor wild animals to visit these sites.

The bedrock of a kudur has light, yellowish, greenish orpinkish colours. They are often covered with dark crustsand crystal dendrites of iron and manganese oxide. Outcropsare disintegrated by cracks throughout the stratum. Separateblocks of exposed rock, especially in the radical part of thetrees, are often transformed into a loose, grainy mass that re-



Figure 6. Geological map and transverse cross section of the Vanchinskaya coal-bearing basin: 1 – Quaternary deposits; 2 – Eocene con-glomerates and sandstones; 3 – Eocene trachyandesites and trachydacites; 4 – Eocene rhyolites and rhyolite tuff; 5 – Eocene carbon-richterrigenous and volcano-sedimentary deposits (argillites, siltstones, sandstones, tuffaceous sandstones, conglomerates, sometimes with in-terbeds of brown coal and rhyolite tuffs); 6 – Palaeocene volcanogenic-sedimentary deposits (tuffaceous siltstones and sandstones withinterbeds of rhyolite tuffs); 7 – Upper Cretaceous to Palaeocene poorly defined undifferentiated formations (predominantly felsic to inter-mediate and mafic volcanic units); 8 – pre-Mesozoic sedimentary and volcanogenic deposits (predominantly siltstones and sandstones); 9 –dip and strike of rock; 10 – faults: determined (a), assumed (b); 11 – tectonic breccia zones; 12 – assumed border of the basin; 13 – sampledlocalities of fossilised flora; 14 – shafts and drill holes; 15 – archaeological site; 16 – the most prominent kudurs.

sembles halva when in a flooded state and appears off-whitewith different shades of impure dust and a sandy elementwhen in a dry state. Derived secondary kudurites enrichedwith clay matter can form at the base of bedrock exposureswhere edge water exudes; they form specific mud and clayedgrounds that are “stomped” by the animals with licked deep-enings, which appear as a result of the animals licking theclay rocks. Often, there are layers containing the fossils ofplants, some of which are coalificated, in Vanchin kudurites.

3.2 Brief geological characteristics of theresearch areas

In the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic, the continental blocksof Sikhote-Alin were affected by rifting and magmatism

(Otofuji et al., 1995, 2002). A prominent episode of ign-imbrite volcanism took place in the Late Cretaceous (Tur-onian to Campanian; ∼ 90–75 Ma) and in the first half ofthe Palaeogene (Palaeocene–Eocene; ∼ 65–45 Ma) (Greben-nikov et al., 2014).

The former period of time (∼ 90–75 Ma) is characterisedby a thick plateau of ignimbrites of so-called Primorskayaformation, which is a part of the Sikhote-Alin volcanic belt.The Primorskaya formation is subdivided into tuffs, rhyo-dacitic and rhyolitic ignimbrites, which were formed due tocaldera eruptions from shallow felsic magma reservoirs. Thedistinctive feature of the ignimbrites is a high content (40–60 %) of crystal clusters of quartz and a plagioclase up to1 cm in size. Dark-coloured minerals are biotite and horn-blende. Accessory minerals are magnetite and, rarely, apatite,



zircon and allanite. Intrusive analogues of the plateau ign-imbrites are granites of the Primorskaya formation, whichare outcropped at eroded volcanic centres. They belong tocalc-alkaline and alkaline rock series. On the upper crust nor-malised trace element diagram they show distinct minima ofNb, Sr, Zr, Ti and maxima of K, Th, La and Ce. Accordingto the discrimination diagram of granitic rocks (Pearce et al.,1984) the granites and ignimbrites of the Primorskaya forma-tion fall into the fields of the volcanic arcs and syn-collisiongranites (Popov et al., 2006; Grebennikov and Popov, 2014).

In the latter period of time (∼ 65–45 Ma), rift structuresof the EW and SE–NW orientation formed. Sediments in therift depressions are often coal-bearing. Igneous formation ofthis age is located within the depressions and calderas. Itis represented by basalts, ignimbrites, baked tuffs, volcanicglasses and rhyolites (often in the form of extrusive domes)of the Yakutinskaya, Solontsovsky and Buinskaya volcanicstructures and Bogopolsky granitic complex (Fig. 1). Theorientation of the magma conduits in concordance with therift orientation testifies to the conditions of continental ex-tension. The youngest depressions (e.g. the Vanchinskaya(Fig. 1), Zerkalnensky and Kraskinsky depressions) wereformed ∼ 47–45 Ma as dated by coeval fissure eruptions ofbasalts and rhyolites (Chekryzhov et al., 2010).

3.3 History of the Vanchinskaya coal-bearingbasin formation

The Vanchinskaya coal-bearing basin, in accordance with theState Geological Survey stratigraphic scheme accepted in the1960s, is filled by the Eocene volcanogenic coal-bearing sed-iments and the Oligocene and Miocene volcanic formations.Volcanics intercalated with aquifer sediments are highly al-tered to zeolite-rich rocks. The highly altered zeolite-bearingrocks were recorded within unconfined aquifer layers of vol-canogenic sediments. At the end of the 1980s, Seredin, a re-searcher from the Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits of theRussian Academy of Science, discovered coal layers with ahigh concentration of rare-earth elements (Seredin and Sh-pirt, 1999) while studying the geochemistry of VanchinskayaBasin coal.

Our research on the Vanchinskaya Basin included strati-graphic investigation involving the study of palaeoflora im-prints and palynological research. The data obtained allowedus to reconstruct the geological history of the VanchinskayaBasin along with the stages of its volcanism, the impact onsedimentation and the hydrothermal alteration (Chekryzhovet al., 2010). As a result, we were able to define the geo-logical patterns of kudur formation and their position in theVanchinskaya depression, and then we applied these patternsto the evaluation of other Sikhote-Alin territories.

According to our reconstruction, during the initial stagesof its formation, the Vanchinskaya Basin was a closed inter-mountain basin with a steep south-western tectonic wall anda gently sloping north-eastern wall. Such a structure could

be considered as a half-graben. The lake basin within it wasa major storage area for terrigenous and volcaniclastic sedi-ments. The data obtained prove that the basin started to formin the Palaeocene (∼ 65–50 Ma).

A large portion of the erupted material (volcanic ash andpumice) was stored in the lake basin, as evidenced by theinterbeds of vitroclastic tuffs and volcanic sands deposited inthe water.

Felsic magma eruptions from near-surface magma cham-bers ended approximately at 43 Ma in the form of a smallextrusion of andesitic melt on the north-eastern bank of thebasin (Chekryzhov et al., 2010). Its fragments, including ex-plosive tuff conglomerates, lava flows and extrusive bodies ofglassy trachyandesites, were currently outcropped. The finalstages of the bimodal (rhyolite and trachyandesite) volcanismwere associated with intensive alteration to the rocks near thethermal springs along the north-west-striking faults. Glassyvolcanics in the regions around the thermal springs weremetasomatically modified into smectite, zeolite and opal-rich rocks. Within the aquifers of the basin, the whole massof tuffaceous and sedimentary rocks experienced strong hy-drothermal alteration. Post-volcanic processes were respon-sible for the formation of gold and silver ores at the Soyuz-noe deposit within the Soyuznensky palaeovolcano (north-eastern side of the depression), as confirmed by the K-Ardating of the adularia from quartz–adularia veins with goldand silver mineralisation (Tomson et al., 2002).

Final relief-forming processes took place between the lateMiocene and the Pleistocene. This was especially true forthe areas of the junction of major ridges and the sublatitude-oriented tectonic zones. The Milogradovskaya tectonic zoneis an example.

The changes in relief were accompanied by a shift of themain divide of the Sikhote-Alin range and reorganisation ofthe drainage pattern of the Ussuri River (Korotkiy, 1968).As a result, the terraces of the Vanchin-Ugolnyi palaeoval-ley were “hanging” on the modern valley walls (50 m highand more), creating a specific intermittent structural benchthat is located 300 m away from the modern stream (Fig. 6).This bench enabled the exposure of zeolite- and clay-bearingrocks along the volcanic and sedimentary deposits at the rightwall of the valley. Some of those exposed areas were formedby specific kudur landscapes.

3.4 Geology and study history of theSolontsovsky volcano

In 1971, Bykovskaya was the first to identify the tuff mass ofrhyolites with horizontal volcanic and sedimentary depositsin the middle current of the Tayozhnaya River as a separatestratigraphic unit called the “Solontsovskaya unit”. As a re-sult of further geological investigations in this area (Vetren-nikov, 1976), it was discovered that the rocks in that massrepresented the ruins of a volcanic structure (Fig. 7) that had



Figure 7. Geological scheme of the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano (Panichev et al., 2012, with additions): 1 – undivided Quaternary landslidedeposits (arrows mark the direction of the slide motion); 2 – Quaternary alluvial deposits (sands, clay, gravels); 3–4 – Eocene extrusivebodies of trachyrhyolites (3) and dacites (4); 5–7 – Palaeocene volcanogenic and volcano-sedimentary formations of the Solontsovskayaunit: pelitic and psammitic tuffs of rhyolites with plant detritus, tuffites, tuff siltstones, tuffaceous sandstones with layers of banded silicitesof the upper subunit (5); ignimbrites and welded tuffs of rhyolites, psammitic tuffs of rhyolites of the transitional subunit (6); ignimbrites andpsephitic and psammitic tuffs of rhyolites, lower subunit tuffites (7); 8 – Palaeocene andesite; 9 – tuffs, tuffites, ignimbrites of the PrimorskySuite rhyolites, the Turonian and Santonian ages; 10 – Eocene andesite subvolcanic bodies and dikes; 11 – faults; 12 – archaeological sitesof the Bronze (a) and Mesolithic (b) ages; 13 – kudurs; 14 – sampling localities.

been called the “Solontsovsky palaeovolcano or calders” byVetrennikov.

According to Vetrennikov (1976), the Solontsovsky vol-cano began to form around 80 Ma. The first data obtained viathe K/Ar dating of volcanic rocks indicate a younger age of61–56 million years (Panichev et al., 2012).

The basement of the palaeovolcano is composed of coarsetuff conglomerates bedded with agglomerated rhyolitic tuffs.During subsequent caldera-forming stages of the volcanism,these were covered by an extensive layer of welded rhyolitetuffs and ignimbrites. Residual hills of these layers remainin the highest parts of the structure where the Zabolochen-naya and Tayozhnaya rivers divide. Within the caldera, thereis a rock mass on the bed of the ignimbrites; these rockscould have been created in the lacustrine environment of thecaldera’s central part fed by multiple thermal springs.

The upper subunit of stratified deposits consists of la-custrine and caldera formations. The rocks are primarilythin re-deposited dust tuffs, sometimes tuffites, created inwater with subsequent diagenetic alteration of the volcanicglass particles. All kudurs examined in the area turned outto be confined to that upper subunit of the Solontsovskayaunit, namely to light grey, white or yellowish zeolite-bearing

rhyolitic tuffs (mostly ash tuffs, sometimes with layers oftuffites).

3.5 Mineralogy and petrography of kudurites

According to X-ray diffraction analysis (Table 1), all kudu-rites and their source rocks have a substantial content ofzeolites (35–65 %). Apart from zeolites, kudurites containclay minerals (up to 26 %) as well as different types of sil-ica (tridymite, christobalite, quartz; 3–25 %) and traces offeldspars, actinolite and goethite.

The mineral compositions of all kudurites within theVanchinskaya Basin is identical with 40–70 % of zeolites be-ing the heulandite and clinoptilolite types, occasionally withthe addition of mordenite and stilbite, and clay minerals ofthe smectite group (up to 40 %) with traces of quartz andfeldspar. One of the kudurite samples contained a significantaddition of adular along with the zeolitic vitroclastic tuffs.Another sample, collected where zeolitic tuff siltstones arein direct contact with a coal layer, also exhibited kaolinite–chlorite alterations.



Table 1. The results of the quantitative X-ray phase analysis of kudurites and source bedrock.

Zeolites Clay rock Other minerals

sam

ples

clin

optil

olite

mor

deni

te

barr

erite

holm

quis

tite

scol

ecite

mon

tmor

illon

ite

illite

trid

ymite

cris

toba

lite

crys

talli

nesi

lica

orth

osep

otas

hfe

ldsp

ar

sodi

umfe

ldsp

arlim

efe

ldsp

ar

actin

olite

mag

hem

ite

goet

hite

3–1 45.4 – – – – 32.6 – – 1.0 1.8 9.1 2.1 – – –3–1 K 40.2 – – – – 25.7 3.5 4.1 3.4 1.5 7.6 8.2 – – –

3–2 47.8 – – – – 31.1 1.0 – 1.0 1.7 5.5 5.7 – – 5.13–3 52.2 – – – – 10.8 3.2 – 2.4 1.5 8.7 7.1 11.1 – –

4–1 K 35.4 – – – – 9.0 5.3 – – 26.3 7.1 10.2 4.1 2.6 –4–2 17.5 – 14.4 16.2 – 7.4 1.0 – – 17.6 7.5 18.4 – – –5–1 – 3.5 – – – 94.3 – – – 2.2 – – – – –

5–5 K 32.0 – – – 22.7 4.5 1.0 2.9 – 26.7 – – 10.2 – –7–14 K 46.0 – – – – 22.0 – – 2.2 15.0 1.0 14.0 – – –8–17 K 48.8 – – – – 36.1 1.1 – 1.7 3.8 4.1 1.4 – – –

Note. 3–1 to 3–3 – Bolshoi Shanduisky kudur: 3–1 – vitric tuff in bedrock, white with yellowish shades, in places with numerous tiny black inclusionsof ferrous and manganous oxide, 3–1 K – the same disintegrated in deluvium (kudurite); 3–2 – vitric tuff similar to tuff from the lower subunit; 3–3 –vitric tuff similar to the tuff from a different horizon; 4–1 K to 4–2 – kudur 4: 4–1 K – disintegrated tuffite in deluvium (kudurite); 4–2 – pelitic tuffite,debris on the ground; 5–1 to 5–5 K – kudur Nechet: 5–1 – opoka-resembling rock from bedrock deposit in the upper part of rockslide without anymarks of consumption by animals, light, white colour with yellowish-brown shading, breaks into plates with shell-like fracturing; 5–5 K – land wasteand small debris of vitric tuff in the roots of a larch tree (kudurite). Vanchinskaya Basin: 7–14 K – disintegrated tuffite in the form of interbed at thebedrock exposure, which resembles halva (kudurite), kudur no. 9; 8–17 K – disintegrated vitric tuff at the outcrop (kudurite), kudur 11.

The zeolites from the Shanduyskiy site (see Table 1)mostly contain clinoptilolite. Some samples contain rareminerals such as barrerite and holmquistite.

Barrerite is a zeolite rich in sodium; for example it is typ-ical of altered ores of the Kamchatka gold–silver deposits(Andreeva and Kim, 2008). The presence of holmquistite isdifficult to explain because this rare type of lithium-rich ze-olite is more typical for metasomatically modified Li-richgranitoids.

The highest concentration of zeolites was found in therocks of the Bolshoi Shanduisky kudur. The visible thick-ness of the subunit related to intensively zeolitic rocks is atleast 50 m (with a zeolite concentration of approximately 40–52 %). This suggests that the frequency of animal visits tokudurs is closely linked to the kudur’s content of zeolites.

The study of thin rock sections facilitated a more accu-rate identification of the parent rock on which the kuduriteshad formed and the determination of a number of detailsabout their secondary transformation. The predominant partof such rocks was originally determined as being vitric tuffsof rhyolite composition, pelitic, rarely psammitic in grainsize, more often with an insignificant content of crystallo-clasts. Zeolites were most actively developing on ashy parti-cles of glass, often fully replacing them with microfelsiticaggregates, which are very clearly seen under a polarised

microscope (Fig. 8a). Pelitic materials were most activelyformed in the interim between large ashy particles, replac-ing the thinnest matrix of cementing mass. In some areas,vitric tuffs with a high concentration of zeolites were fullytransformed into a microfelsitic mass consisting almost com-pletely of zeolite (Fig. 8b).

3.6 Major and trace element composition ofhost rocks and kudurites

The volcanic rocks from which the kudurites are formingwithin the borders of the Vanchinskaya Basin belong to thehigh-potassic dacite–rhyolite series. The obtained K/Ar dat-ing on rhyolite (44.7± 1.0 Ma) (Chekryzhov et al., 2010) in-dicates their younger age compared to similar rocks fromthe Solontsovsky palaeovolcano. Zeolitic rocks (perlite andperlitic tuffs) contain a much lower amount of alkalis com-pared to unaltered rhyolites and rock glasses. The chemicalcompositions of zeolitic perlite, perlitic tuffs and tuffaceoussandstone from different parts of a transverse section of thevolcano-sedimentary deposits are very similar.

Solontsovsky volcano rocks are represented by high-potassic rhyolites of the calc-alkaline series. Thin vitric tuffsin the upper part, including zeolitic variations, turned out to



Table 2. Chemical (mass %) and microelement (µg g−1) composition of the studied kudurites’ parent bedrocks and coprolites.

Element Solontsovsky volcano Vanchinskaya Basin

2–1 K 3–1 K 3–3 3–2 4–1 K 4–2 5–5 1 A 4 A 7–14 K 8–17 K

kudurites coprolites kudurites

SiO2 63.39 67.36 67.07 66.27 61.81 67.30 66.47 60.62 56.12 64.85 64.88TiO2 0.74 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.55 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.32 0.43Al2O3 19.18 11.93 12.16 12.51 16.55 13.54 14.32 11.78 10.92 13.60 12.83Fe2O3 2.80 1.86 1.48 1.34 4.12 1.83 1.14 1.44 1.43 2.33 2.89MnO 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.22 0.10 0.03 0.13MgO 0.53 0.28 0.24 0.22 1.03 0.28 0.21 0.40 0.53 1.42 0.13CaO 4.34 1.03 1.24 1.23 3.66 1.31 1.08 1.84 2.10 0.60 0.63Na2O 4.68 1.81 2.21 2.62 3.06 2.23 1.85 1.18 1.01 2.42 1.99K2O 1.93 3.64 3.87 3.92 2.10 3.75 4.28 5.68 4.62 3.38 2.78P2O5 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.27 0.40 0.15 0.10LOI 2.17 11.95 11.55 6.53 4.42 5.93 8.56 16.40 22.60 7.65 9.90H2O− 0.55 4.22 5.03 5.62 2.91 3.47 2.00 – – 2.80 2.836 100.41 100.00 99.99 100.47 100.31 99.80 100.25 99.99 100.00 99.55 99.55Ni 1.21 0.00 0.00 1.98 2.43 1.40 0.45 0.00 0.00 3.67 4.02Co 3.86 0.14 1.03 0.55 3.97 0.47 0.49 1.29 0.69 1.89 2.03Cr 67.04 0.00 0.00 4.02 30.12 1.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.50V 39.32 3.67 5.15 5.80 42.90 5.21 4.26 7.64 8.43 3.55 3.01Sc 5.60 3.49 3.92 4.40 6.73 4.20 4.10 3.79 3.27 4.37 5.22Zn 47.80 34.41 30.28 42.00 85.40 58.80 50.50 41.92 45.24 81.22 73.16Ga 18.02 17.74 15.21 12.96 15.86 12.79 12.84 13.71 12.35 37.60 23.85Mo 3.71 0.20 0.21 0.64 2.04 0.45 0.24 1.54 0.10 0.33 0.27Rb 39.28 128.63 132.13 90.77 91.47 103.62 88.77 147.08 134.18 210.00 157.33Cs 1.99 7.25 6.53 2.97 7.47 8.70 2.56 6.38 5.82 17.20 9.27Sr 533.80 58.11 89.56 100.34 314.74 115.40 99.70 178.01 147.81 94.00 157.33Ba 466.20 347.40 451.70 421.50 343.60 641.70 808.30 674.60 536.60 131.00 462.81Y 15.95 11.22 16.24 26.15 21.47 19.54 23.71 44.54 23.09 68.60 44.15Zr 334.40 97.36 119.10 264.88 257.33 164.48 148.83 129.90 142.80 585.00 608.23Nb 11.67 9.38 8.08 9.92 11.12 9.84 11.79 8.22 6.32 38.60 37.88Ta 0.87 1.06 0.97 1.24 1.18 1.25 1.32 1.14 0.73 2.02 3.01Hf 2.89 3.15 3.48 9.34 9.30 7.65 7.22 3.76 4.26 11.99 13.88La 16.35 26.40 24.16 35.22 31.38 31.33 27.21 26.17 25.70 61.85 51.48Ce 37.46 55.40 51.65 76.09 65.84 67.79 59.64 55.45 51.20 114.90 112.39Pr 4.26 5.49 5.19 8.45 7.25 7.16 6.54 5.64 5.02 11.98 13.23Nd 15.46 21.70 21.03 32.72 29.94 27.46 25.38 24.34 20.50 47.00 46.25Sm 3.05 4.45 4.57 7.48 6.32 5.70 4.73 5.14 3.92 8.90 10.54Eu 1.48 0.30 0.43 0.61 1.26 0.52 0.79 0.68 0.63 0.86 0.88Gd 2.50 3.74 3.46 6.50 5.61 4.78 4.90 4.85 3.46 9.29 10.53Tb 0.50 0.55 0.56 1.10 0.85 0.72 0.80 0.93 0.63 1.45 1.60Dy 3.80 2.56 3.09 7.27 5.84 5.17 4.90 5.74 3.35 9.07 8.47Ho 0.75 0.49 0.59 1.28 1.19 1.03 1.19 1.38 0.77 1.91 1.54Er 2.50 1.33 1.84 4.10 3.27 3.51 3.37 4.84 2.45 5.53 3.78Tm 0.36 0.21 0.27 0.64 0.50 0.55 0.51 0.74 0.35 0.41 0.61Yb 2.62 1.55 2.11 4.21 3.49 3.38 3.91 5.07 2.53 6.06 3.31Lu 0.40 0.22 0.30 0.68 0.60 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.36 0.98 0.51Pb 16.70 6.20 8.80 16.32 19.70 12.70 25.42 14.10 6.00 19.00 67.40Th 6.17 17.20 15.27 25.96 18.17 26.51 14.30 12.14 11.42 16.00 21.02U 2.07 2.72 2.56 6.49 3.98 3.86 3.47 3.07 3.06 2.99 3.45

Notes. Solontsovsky volcano samples: 2–1 K – zeolite–clay rock in deluvium with the marks of being eaten by animals (kudurite), kudur no. 2; 3–1 K –zeolite-smectite rock in deluvium with the marks of being eaten by animals, kudur no. 3 (Bolshoi Shanduisky); 3–2 – zeolitised vitric tuff of rhyolite from anoutcrop, kudur no. 3 (Bolshoi Shanduisky); 3–3 – the same from a different layer; 4–1 K – zeolite–clay rock in deluvium with the marks of being eaten by animals,kudur no. 4; 4–2 – pelitic tuffite from an outcrop. kudur no. 4; 5–5 K – zeolite–clay rock in deluvium with the marks of being eaten by animals, kudur no. 5(Nechet); 1A and 4A – Manchurian deer excrements (coprolites) gathered near Bolshoi Shanduisky kudur, Vanchinskaya Basin samples: 7–14 K – zeolite–clay rockin deluvium with the marks of being eaten by animals, kudur no. 9; 8–17 K – i.e. kudur no. 11.



Figure 8. Zeolite microcrystals on glass: (a) sample 3–1 (vitricrhyolite tuff) under an electron microscope. There is a practicallycomplete replacement of volcanic glass with zeolite-smectite ag-gregates. The dimension of scale is 1 µm. (b) Sample 4–2 (crystalvitric rhyolite tuff) under thin section. Zeolites are developed alongthe “hecks” of the volcanic glass. The dimension of scale is 50 µm.

be close to the coarse tuffs and rhyolite ignimbrites in termsof their chemical composition (Table 1).

By comparing the data on volcanism and zeolite mineral-isation in the Vanchinskaya Basin and Solontsovsky palaeo-volcano, it can be observed that the processes of zeolite for-mation in the studied volcanic masses, although differentin terms of their morphology, geological structure and age,share a number of common features determined by the geo-chemical type of felsic explosive volcanism that has devel-oped there.

The volcanic and tuffaceous sedimentary rocks of thebasin are characterised by significant variations in their con-centrations of trace elements (Table 2).

Alterations in the rocks studied were manifested by the hy-drothermal changes in tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, vitrictuffs and rock glass. These changes were controlled by thedischarge zones, both linear (Vanchinskaya Basin) and fo-cal (Solontsovsky volcano) types, along which hydrothermalfluids circulated, ascending from near-surface magma cham-bers. The formation of gold–silver Soyuznoe deposit at theeastern side of the Vanchinskaya Basin and the Tayozhnoesilver deposit at the northern side of the Solontsovsky palaeo-volcano was related to this process.

Trace element upper crust normalised patterns of the tuffs,rhyolite ignimbrites and lacustrine-caldera ashy deposits,show a high degree of concordance between each other, withspecific distinct minima of Sr, P, Ti and Tb. Rare-earth el-ement distributions in tuffs, rhyolite ignimbrites and lacus-trine ashy deposits, normalised to chondrite, are also closeto each other. They are characterised by a distinct europiumminimum.

Why do animals living in certain areas of the Sikhote-Alindig up and consume rocks with a high concentration of zeo-

Figure 9. Concentrations of incompatible and rare-earth elementsnormalised to the composition of the upper crust (according to Tay-lor et al., 1981) and chondrite (for rare-earth elements, accordingto Sun and McDonough, 1989) in coprolites and source kuduritesfrom the Solontsovsky palaeovolcano. Coprolite and kudurite dataare denoted by points and crosses, respectively.

lites? This question was raised by us long ago, but no defi-nite answer to it has yet emerged. At the same time, it maybe noted that a general concept of geophagy among animalsand people was already developed (Panichev, 2011; Panichevet al., 2013).

The first and easiest assumption, which any researcher ex-ploring this problem should consider, is that zeolites containa significant stock of sodium ions with exchange potentialthat can easily be released in the electrolytes of animals’ gas-trointestinal tracts, displacing potassium ions, which are inexcess there. The widely known hankering of ruminant ani-mals for sodium salt supports this explanation.

The hypothesis about the active release of sodium ex-changeable ions from zeolite-containing kudurites in the gas-trointestinal tract was verified by us long ago after special ex-periments with artificial electrolytes (Panichev et al., 2012)as well as by a direct quantitative balance calculation basedon coprolite silicate analysis (fossilised faeces) and analo-gous kudurites (Panichev, 1990). The data acquired usingboth methods are in close agreement.

To confirm the hypothesis, let us refer to the results ofthe quantitative comparison of the chemical compositions of



Table 3. The results of comparing the chemical compositions of kudurites and analogous coprolites gathered in the area of the BolshoiShanduisky kudur.

Sample Oxides

SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5

3–1 76.52 0.12 13.55 2.11 0.03 0.31 1.16 2.05 4.14 0.013–3 75.84 0.14 13.75 1.67 0.04 0.27 1.40 2.49 4.37 0.03Average in kudurites 76.18 0.13 13.65 1.89 0.04 0.29 1.28 2.27 4.26 0.021A 72.52 0.20 14.10 1.72 0.26 0.47 2.20 1.41 6.79 0.324A 72.50 0.21 14.10 1.84 0.12 0.68 2.71 1.30 5.96 0.51Average in coprolites 72.51 0.20 14.10 1.78 0.19 0.57 2.45 1.35 6.36 0.41Difference −3.67 +0.07 +0.45 −0.11 +0.12 +0.28 +1.17 −0.92 +2.10 +0.39Difference, % −4.81 +53.84 +3.29 −5.82 +300 +96.55 +91.40 −40.52 +49.29 +1950

Notes. Ignition losses are proportionally distributed. “−” – subtraction of element from kudurite; “+” – addition of element to kudurite in the gastrointestinal tractenvironment.

zeolite-containing kudurites and coprolites that we gatheredin the area of the Bolshoi Shanduisky kudur (Table 3).

Table 3 shows that the content of sodium in the rock com-prises approximately 9 g kg−1. This marker is quite typicalfor zeolite-containing kudurites and is definitely significantwhen we consider that one Far Eastern red deer eats up to10 kg of kudurite on average per season. Meanwhile, thesodium in the kudurite in the gastrointestinal tract conditionsdefinitely exchanges with potassium ions (see Table 3, grossdata). The fact is that, along with the sodium from kudurites,a considerable amount of silicon oxide is released into thegastrointestinal tract (more than 35 g kg−1 of eaten rock). Itcan be explained by the fragmentary subtraction of its ultra-fine particles, which leaves the rock and spreads along thegastrointestinal tract.

Upon further analysis of Table 3, it is clear that zeolitedoes more in the gastrointestinal tract than simply supplysodium ions or other chemical elements (in this case, for ex-ample, iron). It is also a natural sorbent, which apparentlyworks directly to actively absorb potassium along with anumber of other elements, the largest percentages of whichare made up by phosphorus, calcium, magnesium and man-ganese (see Table 3). This action of zeolite can be understoodas a cost that animals must endure to acquire Na in exchangefor a more deficient element.

However, the results in Table 2 also reveal that there areequally complex interactions between kudurites and copro-lites according to microelements. Moreover, the most inter-esting facts, from our perspective, emerge when we comparekudurite–coprolite analogues in the spectrum of incompati-ble and rare-earth elements (these results are plotted for bet-ter visualisation in Fig. 9). The diagram shows that the el-ements that are actively released from the gastrointestinaltract, in addition to phosphorus, are Ba, Sr and practicallyall heavy rare-earth elements.

Thus, the character of the interaction between kudu-rites and electrolytes in the gastrointestinal tract providesevidence that the “sodium hypothesis” offers one poten-

tial explanation for this. This impression is strengthened ifwe recall that zeolite-containing kudurites are less widelydistributed in other regions of the world than chlorite–hydromica varieties, which rarely contain salts or sodiumions in sufficient amounts to compensate for the periodicdeficit of this element in an animal’s body (Panichev, 1990).The sodium hypothesis fails to explain why musk deer,whose basal feed (epiphytic lichen) species has the lowestsodium level compared to forage plants for duplicidentates,deer and elk (in practically any other habitats), totally neglectthe sodium-containing kudurs.

Our data based on comparison of zeolite-containingkudurs with coprolites rather suggests that the main reasonfor kudurite consumption in the Sikhote-Alin is connectedwith the animals’ urge to discard excessive and toxic concen-trations of certain elements that are widespread in specifichabitats and ingested with forage plants. At the same time,the purging of such elements is apparently provided by theabsorption properties of not only the zeolites themselves butalso the silicon oxide gels, and possibly also the aluminium,iron and magnesium oxides formed in the alkaline conditionsof the gastrointestinal tract due to the partial disintegration ofthe disperse phase of kudurite composition (Panichev, 2011).

One can only guess which elements animals are attempt-ing to remove from their bodies with the help of mineral ab-sorbent ion exchangers. In all likelihood, geophagial mecha-nisms of body correction can be induced by various biochem-ical factors, one of which probably has a direct connectionwith the group of rare-earth elements.

4 Conclusions

The primary conclusion of this research is that the major-ity of the kudurs of the eastern Sikhote-Alin (and, presum-ably, analogous situations that will be found in other vol-canic areas) are formed from the zeolite-bearing volcanic andvolcano-sedimentary rocks, glassy rhyolite in most cases,



within the borders of the Cenozoic rift-related basins andcalderas. The association of kudur landscape complexes withthe manifestations of the Cenozoic felsic volcanism predeter-mines their localisation at the Cenozoic volcanic edifices ofthe eastern Sikhote-Alin.

In summary, we should particularly note that our attemptto understand the spectrum of problems touched upon hereat the junction of geology and biology once again confirmsthe importance of scientific research in this area, as well asthe need to broaden the cooperation between specialists ingeology and biology (Golokhvast et al., 2014).

Data availability. No data sets were used in this article.

Author contributions. Alexander M. Panichev andVladimir K. Popov conceived and designed the experiments;Igor Yu. Chekryzhov performed the experiments; Alexan-der M. Panichev, Vladimir K. Popov and Igor Yu. Chekryzhovanalyzed the data; Ivan V. Seryodkin and Kirill S. Golokhvastcontributed reagents, materials and analysis tools; Alexan-der M. Panichev, Alexander A. Sergievich and Kirill S. Golokhvastwrote the paper.

Competing interests. The authors declare that they have no conflictof interest.

Acknowledgements. The authors express gratitude to the manage-ment of the Sikhote-Alinsky Biospheric Reserve and especiallyto director D. G. Gorshkov. Kirill S. Golokhvast received fundingthrough a Grant of the President of the Russian Federation (MD-7737.2016.5)

Edited by: S. FontaineReviewed by: N. P. Bgatova and one anonymous referee

References

Andreeva, E. D. and Kim, A. U.: About zeolites of some epithermalgold-silver deposits of Kamchatka, in VI regional youth scientificconference “Researches in the field of sciences about Earth (ge-ography, geology, geophysics, geoecology, volcanology)”, 26–27 November, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia, 13–20, 2008(in Russian).

Chekryzhov, I. Y., Popov, V. K., Panichev, A. M., Seredin, V. V., andSmirnova, E. V.: New data on the stratigraphy, volcanism, andzeolite mineralization of the cenozoic Vanchinskaya depressionin Primorye, Russ. J. Pac. Geol., 4, 314–330, 2010.

Elpatievsky, P. V. and Panichev, A. M.: Geochemical peculiaritiesof the Sikhote-Alin animal solonetz, Bulletin of Moscow Societyof Naturalists, Biological series, 85, 12–23, 1980 (in Russian).

Golokhvast, K., Sergievich, A., and Grigoriev, N.: Geophagy (RockEating), Experimental Stress and Cognitive Idiosyncrasy, AsianPacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 4, 362–366, 2014.

Grebennikov, A. V. and Popov, V. K.: Petrogeochemical Aspects ofthe Late Cretaceous and Paleogene Ignimbrite Volcanism of EastSikhote-Alin, Russian J. Pac. Geol., 8, 38–55, 2014.

Kaplanov, L. G.: Tiger. Manchurian deer. Moose, Moscow Societyof Naturalists, Moscow, 128, 1948 (in Russian).

Kononenko, N. A.: Late Paleolithic and Neolithic Periods in Pri-morye: Problems of Origin and Intercommunication of AncientCultures, in: Prehistory and Ancient History, Seoul, 4, 153–166,1993.

Korotkiy, A. M.: About reorganization of the Sikhote-Alin hydro-graphic system plan, in: Voprosy geologii I okeanologii sovet-skogo sektora Tikhookeanskogo podvizhnogo poyasa, Vladivos-tok, 315–322, 1968 (in Russian).

Otofuji, Y. I., Matsuda, T., Itaya, T., Shibata, T., Matsumoto, M.,Yamamoto, T., Morimoto, C., Kulinich, R. G., Zimin, P. S.,Matunin, A. P., Sakhno, V. G., and Kimura, K.: Late cretaceousto early Paleogene paleomagnetic results from Sikhote Alin, FarEsatern Russia: implications for deformation of East Asia, EarthPlanet. Sc. Lett., 130, 95–108, 1995.

Otofuji, Y. I., Matsuda, T., Enami, R., Uno, K., Nishihama, K., Su,L., Kulinich, R. G., Zimin, P. S., Matunin, A. P., and Sakhno, V.G.: Internal de-formation of Sikhote Alin volcanic belt, Far East-ern Russia: Paleogene paleomagnetic results, Tectonophysics,350, 181–192, 2002.

Panichev, A. M.: Lithophagy in the human and animal world, Publ.House “Nauka”, Moscow, 215, 1990 (in Russian).

Panichev, A. M.: Lithophagy. Geological, ecological and biomedi-cal aspects, Publ. House “Nauka”, Moscow, 149, 2011 (in Rus-sian).

Panichev, A. M., Popov, V. K., Chekryzhov, I. Y., Golokhvast, K.S., and Seryodkin, I. V.: Kudurs of Solontsovsky paleovolcano inTayozhnaya river basin, Eastern Sikhote-Alin, Achievements inthe Life Sciences, 5, 7–28, 2012 (in Russian).

Panichev, A. M., Golokhvast, K. S., Gulkov, A. N., and Chekryzhov,I. Y.: Geophagy and geology of mineral licks (kudurs): a re-view of russian publications, Environmental Geochemistry andHealth, 35, 133–152, 2013.

Pearce, J. A., Harris, N. B. W., and Tindle, A. G.: Trace elementdiscrimination diagrams for the tectonic interpretation of graniticrocks, J. Petrol., 25, 956–983, 1984.

Popov, V. K., Simanenko, V. P., and Sakhno, V. G.: East Sikhote-Alin volcanic-plutonik belt (Late Cenomanian-Maastrichtian),Volcanic formations, in: Geodinamics, magmatism and metal-logeny of the Russian East: in 2 books, edited by: Khanchuk,A. I., Vladivostok: Dalnauka, Book 1, 273–281, 2006.

Pushcharovsky, D. Yu.: Minerals X-ray analysis, Publ. House“Geoinformmark”, Moscow, 292, 2000 (in Russian).

Seredin, V. V. and Shpirt, M. Y.: Rare earth elements in the humicsubstance of metalliferous coals, Lithol. Miner. Resour., 3, 281–286, 1999.

Sun, S. S. and McDonough, W. F.: Chemical and isotopic system-atics of ocean basalts implications for mantle composition andprocesses, Magmatism in ocean basin, edited by: Saunders, A.D. and Norry, M. J., Geol. Soc. London. Spec. Pub. B, 42, 313–345, 1989.

Taylor, S. R., McLennan, S. M., Armstrong, R. L., and Tarney, J.:The composition and evolution of the continental crust: rare earthelement evidence from sedimentary rocks, Philos. T. R. Soc.,301, 381–399, 1981.



Tomson, I. N., Polyakova, O. P., Sidorov, A. A., and Alekseev, V.Y.: Soyuznoe gold-silver deposit in Primorye and its prospects(Russia), Geol. Ore Deposit., 44, 304–313, 2002.

Vetrennikov, V. V.: Geological structure of the Sikhote-Alin state re-serve and the cenral Sikhote-Alin, in Scientific Papers of Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve, Vol. VI. Vladivostok: Far East BookPublishing House, 167, 1976 (in Russian).

Young, S.: Craving Earth: Understanding Pica: the Urge to Eat Clay,Starch, Ice, and Chalk, Columbia University Press, New York,2011.

Zaumislova, O. J. and Panichev, A. M.: Licks as a Component ofEnvironment of the Ussuryi Elk, in Proceedings III InternationalMoose Symposium: Syktyvkar, USSR, 55, 1990 (in Russian).


geological nature of mineral licks and the reasons for geophagy … · region, the western bank of...

Documents